User talk:Y2kcrazyjoker4

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

Thanks for uploading File:Liveacoustic-parkave.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; some sort of brain misfire caused me to think of the wrong group and thus the wrong page to notify. isaacl (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Y2kcrazyjoker4. Why have you deleted the photo of Jon Hopkins? It is the newest photo of him and I got photo accreditation by publishing the image on his wiki bio. You can move the photo, but deleting is not acceptable. Please undo this. Stiansmoller (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete the photo, it is still in Wikimedia Commons. But I didn't see the value of an image in which the subject is mostly just a silhouette and not easily seen. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, you deleted the photo in the article, and this is something I cant accept. I got photo accreditation from the venue for his wiki bio, so the photo has to be in the his bio. Instead of making it a new profile photo I will put in the live section. It makes more sense to have it there because it is a silhouette picture. Stiansmoller (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I plead you to stop reverting the work I did my friend,Proof please.https://www.reddit.com/r/BatmanArkham/comments/11kyx4b/arkham_origins_takes_place_in_december_2013_as/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1 JackBridgestone (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously that stupid that you Didn’t Notice the calendar in Deathstroke trailer with a calendar of 2013. This Means Arkham Games are set in present day. Just like how dumb last of us prologue was in 2013. JackBridgestone (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

are you really stupid to not notice it in death stroke trailer JackBridgestone (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The next time you post on my talk page, I'm reporting you to admins. I have gone out of my way to ignore you for several days. I haven't even touched any of your edits in that timeframe, and yet you are still posting abusive comments on my talk page. Whatever personal problems you're going through, resolve them outside of Wikipedia instead of taking it out on editors. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really stupid you can’t notice The Date of the calendar in Deathstroke trailer, idiot. JackBridgestone (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you not to post this crap on my talk page, and you have chosen to continue to be abusive and immature. Let's see what admins think of this. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Y2kcrazyjoker4 Please stop reverting my work, how many times will you try do do this, Seriously what is the Loss for you if I Add Dates with Sources. I’ve had enough, Please tell me yourself What year The Arkham Games Are Set In, with Source. JackBridgestone (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Y2kcrazyjoker4 just because you think in your fantasy that prequel’s can’t be in there release date that doesn’t mean your correct, Look at the Calendar in Deathstroke trailer, it reads 2013, Making Arkham Knight our Current year. JackBridgestone (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines: "Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." – this talk page is 329.1 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. TheCorvetteZR1^{(The Garage)} 02:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another user explained to me that careers of broadcasting or coaching are mentioned in the infobox and/or lede ONLY if they were significant parts of a player's career. For example Tim McCarver and Bob Uecker have had a significant career as a broadcaster and, in those cases, they are mentioned.

Just wanted to let you know in case you didn't.

Edit: In Koufax's case, he was a minor league coach, not a major league one. Had he been a major league coach, then it would be mentioned.

Edit 2: If this sounded patronizing, I'm very sorry :P. I realize you are a LONG time contributor, far longer than I have been. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, not patronizing at all. It just seems like nothing about his post-playing career is mentioned in the lede, so it gives the false impression that he did nothing in baseball after retiring as a player. 6 years as an announcer, 11 seasons as pitching coach (thank you for correcting me, by the way), other years spent as a front office advisor. The lede is meant to summarize the entire article, so it felt like a big omission not to have some info from that part of his life. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually thinking rewriting the lead section on Koufax's page to be a little shorter and more of summary of the article rather than his career only. It has been that way for as long as I can remember. Maybe I could add his post-playing career at the end of it, in some detail rather than one line, whenever I do. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed in this edit, you changed somebody's entry of the Metacritic score assigned to Rolling Stone's review to 3.5/5 stars, but the main Rolling Stone announced last year it no longer awards star ratings (covered here), and the site's review page doesn't contain one. Just letting you know for future. Ss112 15:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware they had removed the ratings for all reviews. I had seen the "Hear this" and "Instant classic" badges with stars on them for recent albums, but I did not know only select albums were receiving them. Thanks. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that Mojo and Uncut have been magazines for decades, but I don't have access to them so don't feel comfortable citing anything other than Metacritic's quote of them. That being said, the ratings listed at Uncut's site are out of five stars. Does its print edition award ratings out of 10? Ss112 03:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the entire issues of Mojo and Uncut for September, front to back. I don't think you need to personally see them if another user has seen them and added the relevant information. You shouldn't have to personally sign off on other print references that other people have added. And yes, Uncut's print edition uses numbers on a scale to 10. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 03:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

??? I was saying I personally don't add the star ratings for things I haven't seen (hence why I didn't already add the ratings from Mojo and Uncut), not saying I "need to sign off" on the citations you added. Ss112 02:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I misunderstood what you meant. It sounded like you were advocating I not add the ratings because you wanted to see them for yourself. My bad. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 02:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited U2:UV Achtung Baby Live at Sphere, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Shapiro.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Google Play Music screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the section about the four position players who were not on board with the cheating. Is it highly relevant, multi-sourced, exculpatory information about four individuals famous enough to have their own Wikipedia pages subject to BLP rules. I have now added the topic to the relevant article's talk page. Feel free to chime in there and seek a concensus. Thank you. Matza Pizza (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Y2k. Per WP:USCHARTS, we don't add any of the other US alternative or rock charts (Adult Alternative Airplay, Alternative Airplay, Mainstream Rock) if a song charted on the Hot Rock & Alternative Songs and/or Rock Airplay charts as those charts are considered components of the broader rock and alternative charts (these have been discussed before), so I've removed them from the article for "Atomic City". Ss112 20:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What's the problem? Why did you undo most of my recent edits? I realise I'm new here and might have made some mistakes, but to have them all undone without even an explanation seems harsh. RobinJames68 (talk) 07:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were a lot of things that were not valid. First off, band member roles and instruments do not get listed in the infobox, it's just a list of people. Secondly, song titles do not get italicized, they are placed in quotes; only album titles get italicized. I recommend you read WP:MOSMUSIC for guidance on future editing. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Y2kcrazyjoker4. You reverted five of my edits that were destined to apply uniformity to captions punctuation within a single article. Many articles include similar captions, some of which do not include a period at the end while others do. On one of them you mentioned "full sentences end with periods, regardless of if they are captions or not". On this page for example you can see that on the first image on the left side there is a period at the end but not on the second picture on the left. In both cases they are articles with full sentences, so why shouldn't the second one end with a period? Don't you think that both legends should have uniformity and either both end with a period or either both end without a period since they are both in the same article? --Giles Laurent (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, they are called captions, not legends. Secondly, periods end any full sentence, whether the sentence is in the article prose or a caption. The only time a period should be omitted is if the caption is a fragment of a sentence. Uniformity is irrelevant; there is often a reason in many cases that it is not uniform. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 23:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of research and just found out the MOS:CAPFRAG rule (it's easier to find when you search for it using the term caption instead of legend; thank you for pointing this out). All I wanted was for it to have a bit of logic in captions and now that I found the rule I know exactly what applies. Thank you for helping me find it, cheers. Giles Laurent (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why revert the edit? It was more concise and according to the word limit. Pihara3791 (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right. The plot summary in this article has been contentious in the past, so I've generally tried to keep the consensus, long-standing version in place when I've been unsure about the changes. But your changes were perfectly fine. My apologies. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There's recent discussion for track listing template. If you have time, your comments are always appreciated. Regards. 2001:D08:2933:D216:17AD:2929:6BF4:D7D3 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't discredit me based on nationality again. Maybe that was not your intention but that's how I felt. If you have issues with my writing, point them out specifically. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 22:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was not to discredit you but make you realize that other people have something to contribute and that there is always room for improvement by collaborating with others who have more experience. I apologize for making you feel that way. But it does not change how I feel about how the writing can be clearer, tighter, and more concise. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics restrictions apply to Donald Trump. When editing the article, you must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message. You violated the rule here and a second time here. Please, self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. ​​ Theknine2 suggest that not to use "Label" and "Region" columns via updated table. Your comments would be appreciated. Regards. Also another discussion at "Label" or "distribution". 2001:D08:2950:CE03:55B0:A6DE:7BFD:FD52 (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from 2024 Chicago White Sox's 121st loss, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{proposed deletion}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coldplay are not dead, so why is the "Living" parameter being removed? GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 17:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but bots aren't scheduled to do maintenance tasks for no reason. Perhaps the parameter is deprecated? Perhaps it does not apply any longer to groups, since they aren't technically a person? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

I'll tell you where the years in Mariano Rivera came from; I was so caught up on the accuracy of the streaks that I misread both dates. Not my proudest moment as an editor on here! 😅 Thanks for catching that error; I completely missed it.

I'm still deciphering the 1998 ruling about which outs don't count since its not consistant in sources. I see that Rivera's one out was not an inning where he allowed a run so that's also a good catch. Thanks! Omnis Scientia (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, good work creating the article! I looked into this type of streak before, and I know that Rivera's would have been 34 and 1/3 if you counted outs recorded in an inning in which a run was allowed. Either way you slice it, Rivera's streak was longer than Ford's, but just barely. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 11:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed JUST longer than Ford's. It took me a while to understand rule but I understand it now. I'll be changing the regular season records as well where applicable. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to Donald Trump town hall in Oaks, Pennsylvania. I have no idea where you stand re: notability, but it is so refreshing when editors actually collaborate and work to improve entries rather than jump on the 'tear down immediately' train. Whether or not the article is kept, thanks again for the article improvements. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm finished with that article for now. It's still in awful shape. There's a talk page section there if you feel like undoing any more of my edits. I'm confident I can justify all of them. Big problems on articles like that; they are mainly edited by fans, who take it as read that every little thing their heroes do needs to be in the article. One of the edits you restored has them going somewhere for "the first time ever". Not just for the first time, which is fannish completism, but "the first time ever". I don't think the "ever" adds anything, especially on an article which is (still) grossly too long. Best wishes, and see you in article talk. John (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Pitnol has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 30 § Pitnol until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 08:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]